I believe that when you license Weblogic from Oracle, the Weblogic license includes a license for the Oracle JVM it runs on. So there is no reason to run Weblogic on another JDK/JVM. I assume that Oracle requires their JDK/JVM for Weblogic to keep support simpler.
It is not shown, but I expect that Oracle EE is probably the most significant contributor to software licensing costs. If Oracle licensing was computed for 288 cores, that is totally unrealistic. Oracle EE would only run on a subset of cores.
If I recall correctly, Oracle licencing would actually require to pay for all the 288 cores on the host even if just a subset of the VMs in that virtualization run Oracle.
True for all x86 virtualization i know of.
But not true for IBM Power LPARs where only the entitled CPU resources have to be licensed and can even be shared between LPAR (Power Enterprise Pool).
I don't know for sure but would therefore assume that it's the same for the IBM mainframe platform.
In 1996 I remember Oracle was licensed per user. We were planning to use it to back a Netscape Publishing System (IIRC) for a portal with both open and subscription-based areas.
Guess what happened when Oracle learned we were planning to have 3 million users...
An alternative implementation of BigQuery? If the integration libraries are that bad, perhaps the market would go for a BigQuery alternative with better integration support.
I expect that the integration libraries probably work pretty well for most users, and implementing a database like BigQuery would be a massive amount of work. So this pretty much explains why Google isn't sprinting to fix this issue.
> You don't pay investments back. They are a purchase of shares. The exchange is made and you're done.
This is a common misunderstanding that equity funding is free. For the owner of a business, taking outside investment and issuing share in return is diluting the original owners stake in the business. If effect, you are paying for these investments forever because you are giving up some portion of the businesses future profits.
There are certainly situations where this makes sense if you are able to grow much faster with the additional capital. However, the investment is not free.
That's correct, taking venture capital is almost always a massive obligation and a very real operational liability. It's just not a liability in the financial loan/debt sense, the liability isn't on the balance sheet as debt, it's in the obligation and complexities that come with managing the new capital partners and their self-interest; self-interest which may not always align with your own or the company's best interests. The operational liability is burrowed into the cap table.
The US is absolutely shooting for herd immunity now. Its just a question of how individual members of the herd want to achieve their immunity. They can take the easy way (vaccination) or the hard way (get Covid).
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Established, tenured experts from every single one of the world's top medical institutions have expressed agreement with this statement (and also some in apparent opposition).
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbvO4sUg1eA (Gupta is a pioneer of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford and has broken ground on a new platform for generic influenza vaccination which is very exciting)
* https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/13716384856863580... (note: In addition to his decades at Harvard researching vaccine safety, Kulldorff served two terms on a CDC vaccine technical subgroup - he is certainly in the very top echelon of experts on the topic of your comment)
That seems like the stupidest lottery to enter into however.
Even people without an "underlying health condition" have died. And even those who haven't died are experiencing long term complications from having had COVID.
So you can either hope you don't have a hard time with COVID if you catch it. Or you can drastically reduce your chances of having a hard time and of catching it all by just taking a couple minutes out of your day to get vaccinated.
Sorry, while I do like to gamble in general, if the penalties include death and/or permanent disability, I'm going with the option that makes that less likely. Which is the vaccine.
I have two people on my team who are both in their mid-20s. Both have had covid in the last couple of weeks, one hadn't had his vaccine the other only his first dose. The one without ended up in hospital for 2 weeks and was very nearly intubated. The other had a mild cough and has happily worked through it. I know which one I'd pick.
And without in-depth diagnostics to know both parties health state (not just shallow visual "they look healthy/are active") then you're making huge assumption as to if it was result of vaccine or not; and that ideology, lack of critical thinking, is why society is in the state we're; this will get downvoted too if it gets any exposure, another sign society is askew - because I'm correct in my statement but people who are ideological don't like being proven wrong.
But based on statistical evidence alone, borne out by millions of data points, not a single solitary anecdote, the vaccine works to protect you from the worse of COVID if you catch it at all.
You decry a "lack of critical thinking", but don't apply any yourself. It's just a cudgel to you to use against people who don't agree with you. Consider the simple fact that you may be wrong.
And look at you, boosting every huckster claim but ignoring the one thing that is shown to work on a large scale. Would it soothe your feelings if we just said the vaccine was an ivermectin hcq cocktail?
Because it looks like you want to "them" to be wrong more than anything else.
From an individual point of view, where are you going to go for a in-depth health assessment? Presumably the same doctor who would recommend in the strongest terms that you get the vaccine unless you have a history of certain clotting disorders or are using particular medication. Unless you seek out a doctor on the fringes of established medical fact.
The fact is that contracting COVID is the worst possible way to achieve protection from COVID.
And at some point, you're just classifying everyone as having some sort of "factor". Which isn't useful either. If everyone has a factor, then factors don't matter. Especially if you have a factor that isn't obvious, like Vitamin D deficiency.
And like I implied, healthy, young people have been hospitalized with COVID and some of those have died. Just like some with "factors" have done ok.
But the one thing that reduces complications with a very, very high degree of success is the vaccine. It even reduces your chances of contracting the disease itself.
Not getting the vaccine is entering yourself in the stupidest lottery in history.
Vaccines are great and very effective at preventing bad outcomes, but let's be realistic about risks. Very few people without an underlying health condition have died.
94.9% of hospitalizations had an underlying health condition. Mainly high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes.
You do know that about half of all people in the U.S. classify as having hypertension, right? It's not uncommon. People who look perfectly healthy and feel like nothing is wrong can have it.
You probably have it.
So if we're being "realistic about risks", we have to acknowledge that roughly half of all people who get COVID are going to have at least one "underlying health condition".
Not really. Officially and unofficially they are pushing everyone to the vaccine. People who have antibodies are still getting fired from their jobs because they didn't take the vaccine. There's even talk of requiring the vaccine for some schools, regardless of prior infection status. So the US is not shooting for herd immunity through either means, but only through vaccination. Even federal employees are being required to attest to their vaccinated status without similar options for those with antibodies acquired by other means.
I'm saying that the parent's comment about pushing for herd immunity through both means is not exactly true. We are moving towards herd immunity by both methods unintentionally, but the only method being pushed is vaccination. So much so, that antibodies derived from infection are not even being counted, but rather those persons are being told they need the vaccine anyways.
It's a bit like measuring outputs rather than outcomes.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that we should be “pushing for herd immunity through both means” as in we should be pushing for vaccinations and pushing people to spread the disease as fast as possible?
I'm simply stating the claim that US is pushing for herd immunity through the choice of infection of vaccination is not true. That only vaccination is being pushed, and it is not exactly a free choice if you're going to lose your job or be denied service over it.
What this shows is that a single dose administered to a previously infected person provides greater antibody production than a non infected person's recieving two doses. The study also says that they are unsure if those higher levels affect a patient's ability to get sick or transmit the virus.
What I would be looking for is a study showing that prior infection has x% effectiveness as measured against a vaccine on a similar timeline.
I have a link to one below. My guess is corporate lawyers who want to limit liability without any understanding of the underlying issues.
Even my job has said that you have to be vaccinated to return (limited medical and religious exceptions). They also said it wouldn't make sense to keep the unvaccinated people working remotely, implying that they will fire people. They are not accepting antibody tests.
There has been alot of innovation in digital payments in India over the last 10 years. There are a number of local alternatives to traditional card brands. This might be a combination of protectionism to support local payment alternatives, and international card network unwillingness to invest in India given declining market share.
How about adjusting the tax rate that is paid on income based on wealth? This would absolutely complicate the tax code for wealthy individuals, but it would certainly increase the tax paid by the wealthy on the income that they do have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_compu...